Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

koshyjohn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 656 posts

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#161

Post by throwyawayyyy »

> Going back to the analogies: This is like copying answers through university and then showing up to a job that requires independent thought.

That's exactly what is happening now. I wouldn't even call it an analogy, I'd call it an example of where AI is already having a baleful effect. FWIW I don't disagree with the article's thesis or the examples: yes, absolutely, if used well AI can elevate engineers in exactly this way and it behooves us engineers to use it in that way. We can also say that the deliberate design of the AI systems we are constantly being exhorted to use inclines them towards work-slop and abdicated thinking.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#162

Post by spacechild1 »

vips7L wrote: post #138
spacechild1 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you study?

Computer Science.

I see. Computer Science is not an engineering degree and it is not about programming. That's what Software Engineering degrees are for.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#163

Post by viccis »

staticshock wrote: post #66

The eloquence with which this point gets (repeatedly) made is continuing to improve each next time I read it. However, I still feel like we haven't nailed it. That is, we are not yet at the "aphorism" stage of the discourse (e.g. "the medium is the message", "you ship your org chart", "9 mothers can't make a baby in a month"), in which the most pointed version of this critique packs a punch in just a few words that r…

>the medium is the message

If you asked 100 Americans what this aphorism means, I strongly doubt a single one could capture McLuhan's original meaning.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#164

Post by [deleted] »

sumeno wrote: post #62
erxam wrote: post #42

Here's the question I want to posit and nobody who's against AI has managed to answer satisfactorily: what is it in for me if I were to acquire all those skills? I don't give a shit about this career. I don't give a shit about engineering. I despise every second of it. There's nothing to aim for other than being a drone that does whatever is asked of it. If AI can reduce my mental workload, why wouldn't I want to del…

Why are you employable if the AI does everything for you?

[deleted]

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#165

Post by lelanthran »

lukan wrote: post #159
lsy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI coding isn’t an abstraction, though. You can’t treat a prompt like source code because it will give you a different output every time you use it. An abstraction lets you offload cognitive capacity while retaining knowledge of “what you are doing”. With AI coding either you need to carefully review outputs and you aren’t saving any cognitive capacity, or you aren’t looking at the outputs and don’t know what you’re…

"You can’t treat a prompt like source code because it will give you a different output every time you use it" But it seems we are heading there. For simple stuff, if I made a very clear spec - I can be almost sure, that every time I give that prompt to a AI, it will work without error, using the same algorithms. So quality of prompt is more valuable, than the generated code So either way, this is what I focus my thin…

Didnt work for the prod data that the AI nukes in spite of prompts saying "DON'T FUCKING GUESS", just like that in all caps: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911524

What makes you think it will work for you?

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#166

Post by fc417fc802 »

coldtea wrote: post #155
keeda wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions. This is a pet peeve of mine, so while I understand what you mean, I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! And since I've had this discussion before, I'll pre-emptively hazard a guess that the argument boils down to "rigor", and point out that a) economic fe…

> I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! "Structured, mature, legally enforced, physically grounded standards based approach to the construction of repeatable, reliable, verifiable, artifacts under stable (to the degree that matters) external constraints". Some niche software development (e.g. NASA/JPL coding projects with special rules, practices, MISRA etc) can…

By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. It's correct to claim that software engineering isn't currently an accredited profession and it's also quite reasonable to question the extent to which the vast majority of software development qualifies as the practice of engineering. But the latter is highly subjective and will likely also rule out a significant fraction of the grunt work that accredited engineers perform.

Which is to say, engineer the job title is distinct from engineering the activity is distinct from engineer the accreditation.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#167

Post by dwaltrip »

luckystarr wrote: post #133

The way I use AI now feels more exhausting than the programming I did for the last 20 years. I pose a problem, then evaluate proposals, then pick the one I think is the "right one"(tm), then see the AI propose a bunch of weird shit, then call it out, refine the proposal until it feels just about right (this is the exhausting part), then let it code the proposal. The coding will then run for 1-5 hours and produce some…

I feel this as well. I think it’s something to do with having to be more “on” as you slowly work with the LLM to define the problem and find a reasonable solution. There’s not much of a flow-state. You have to process mountains of output and identify the critical points, over and over, endlessly. And it will always be an off in this unsettling little way, even when it’s mostly quite good. It’s jarring.

The strange sorts of errors and reasoning issues LLMs have also require a vigilance that is very draining to maintain. Likewise with parsing the inhuman communication styles of these things…

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#168

Post by bluefirebrand »

bla3 wrote: post #123
staticshock wrote: post #66

The eloquence with which this point gets (repeatedly) made is continuing to improve each next time I read it. However, I still feel like we haven't nailed it. That is, we are not yet at the "aphorism" stage of the discourse (e.g. "the medium is the message", "you ship your org chart", "9 mothers can't make a baby in a month"), in which the most pointed version of this critique packs a punch in just a few words that r…

> "can't make 9 babies in a month" It's "9 women can't make a baby in one month".

In fairness, 9 women can't make 9 babies in a month either

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#170

Post by lelanthran »

relativeadv wrote: post #34
saadn92 wrote: post #10

Hard disagree. I feel like I'm thinking a lot more now because I have so many parallel projects going on at the same time. AI has allowed me to really, truly create in a way that I've never done before. Yes, my coding skills probably aren't as sharp as they used to be, but my system design skills are at an all time high. Don't blame the tool.

I work with others who have made this same claim. For those people, when I observed their work during demo days the unmentioned thing is that they were going to the AI for system design questions as well. This was framed as "just using it as a sounding board" but what was actually done was not merely a sounding board but instead was asking for solutions. Anchoring bias being what it is, these felt like good ideas and…

I actually have gone to the AI repeatedly for system design solutions.

Daily.

I think only twice have I agreed with it.

Like the way it will always give you code if you ask, even if the code is crap, it will always give you a design if you ask. Won't be a good design, though.

Post reply on HN